This site uses cookies.

August 2023 Contents

Welcome to the August 2023 issue of PI Brief Update Law Journal. Click the relevant links below to read the articles.


Note that there are no new monthly CPD quizzes since the SRA and the BSB have both updated their CPD schemes to eliminate this requirement. Reading PIBULJ articles can still help to meet your CPD needs. For further details see our CPD Information page.


Personal Injury Articles
Caution given against misconceived appeals of case management decisions: Jennings v Otis Limited and Bristol City Council [2023] EWHC 2039 (KB) - Nancy Kelehar, Temple Garden Chambers
The appeal related to a case management order (CMO) made by Master Thornett at the RCJ in March 2023. The Master was critical of the pleadings and the Claimant’s Part 18 responses which, in his view, failed to adequately set out their case. The underlying claim related to an incident whereby the Claimant suffered a traumatic amputation of his arm when it became entangled in lift machinery on which he was carrying out maintenance. The Claimant submitted that they would be prejudiced by the CMO which required a further reply to the Part 18 request and unilateral service of the Claimant’s witness evidence...
FREE CHAPTER from 'A Practical Guide to Respirable Crystalline Silica Dust Claims' by Helen Pagett
This book is a practical guide for both Claimant and Defendant lawyers involved in this litigation; covering all stages of the litigation process, including the historical knowledge of the problems caused by silica, injuries attributable to silica and how these claims can be brought.
'Mixed claims' and the application of QOCS - Afriyie v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2023] EWHC 1974 (KB) - Amy Lanham Coles, Temple Garden Chambers
This claim arose out of an incident in which the Claimant had been tasered by the police and had fallen and hit his head. The Claimant had brought a claim for assault, battery and misfeasance in public office. He pursued damages falling into five categories: (i) basic damages for assault and battery; (ii) general damages for personal injuries; (iii) special damages including property damage and medical expenses; (iv) aggravated damages; and (v) exemplary damages. The claim had failed at trial and this case arose out of a consequential dispute as to costs; namely the application of the Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting ('QOCS') regime, which...
The 'fundamental' in fundamental dishonesty: Attique Denzil v Usman Mohammed and UK Insurance Ltd [2023] EWHC 2077 (KB) - Amy Lanham Coles, Temple Garden Chambers
In this case, the Appellant had asserted at trial that he had suffered various injuries in a road traffic accident, including an alleged injury to his head causing swelling for three to four days. This head injury had not been pleaded and was not referenced in the medical evidence but appeared in the Appellant’s witness statement and oral evidence. In closing submissions, however, this head injury was not pursued as part of the pleaded case for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA). The trial judge held that there had been no injury to the Appellant’s head and the Appellant had been dishonest in relation to that specific injury. In relation to the other injuries, it was held these had not been proven to the sufficient standard. Further, the trial judge regarded the...
Both parts of a combined Part 36 offer have to be beaten for Part 36 cost consequences to follow (and leapfrog permission given on child 'lost years' claim): CCC (by LF MMM) v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals [2023] EWHC 1905 (KB) - Nancy Kelehar, Temple Garden Chambers
Mr Justice Richie addressed two matters of importance. First, how the court should assess whether a combined Part 36 offer has been beaten. Second, whether an appeal point in relation to a child’s claim for lost years should be certified for a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court. The underlying claim related to an 8-year-old girl suffering from cerebral palsy and a reduced life expectancy caused by the Defendant’s failure to prevent severe chronic partial hypoxic ischaemia before and during her birth.
Clinical Negligence Medicine by Dr Mark Burgin
The interaction between medications and ethanol (alcohol) - Dr Mark Burgin
Dr Mark Burgin discusses the legal implications of drug-alcohol interactions and how to recognise the common patterns that present in legal cases. Lawyers are often encounter clients whose problems may have been worsened by their alcohol intake. This can be a claimant who suffered side effects from a drug prescribed by their doctor worsened by their use of alcohol. The defendant found to be over the limit days after their last alcohol intake. Sedation, anaesthesia or even surgical anaesthesia due to an interaction between alcohol and a prescribed medication. This article gives the lawyer a summary of the common interactions and their legal significance...
Tricks to Increase Quantum in RTA PI cases - Dr Mark Burgin
Dr Mark Burgin Opens the door on the murky world of requests for amendments and encourages the industry to discuss possible solutions. Experts are often asked to make changes to their reports. In my experience these changes are sometimes reasonable and reflect a simple misunderstanding of fact. Unfortunately more often they are letters which contain tricks to increase quantum. This is an increasing problem in my opinion partly because of Civil Liability Act 2018 and partly because of the loss of some excellent solicitors from the industry...

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.